obligation of impartiality, they argued that “the Organic Code established that judges may lose their jurisdiction to hear specific cases due to declared legal impediment or recusal. One of the grounds for legal impediment is the prior expression of their opinion or decision on the pending matter, with sufficient knowledge of the case to pronounce judgment.” Consequently, “the Plenum of the Supreme Court should have made this declaration, ex officio, and called on substitute judges who were not disqualified to decide the appeal.” In addition, they argued that the State had violated the defendant’s right to the presumption of innocence, the right of the accused to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, the right to adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense, and had failed to comply with the obligation to provide the reasons for the decision. Lastly, they indicated that the State had violated Article 2 of the Convention because the disciplinary proceedings were not held before a competent, independent and impartial court, did not respect the presumption of innocence, and did not provide the defendant with legal counsel or grant him sufficient time to prepare his defense. 99. The State argued, with regard to the obligation to provide the reasons for the decision that “both the Appellate Court of La Serena and the Supreme Court, as its hierarchical superior, provided sufficient grounds for the decisions they adopted in the disciplinary proceedings held in the case of Judge Daniel Urrutia.” Regarding the alleged lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court, the State indicated that “the mere fact that the Supreme Court sent the paper in question to the Appellate Court of La Serena ‘for its consideration and pertinent purposes,’ did not constitute per se evidence that allowed the presumption of impartially of the domestic courts involved in this case to be negated.” With regard to the lack of an appropriate and effective remedy, Chile argued that “considering the pyramidal structure of the Judiciary, it is not possible to argue that, in this case, [Mr.] Daniel Urrutia did not have a remedy, because the petitioner himself filed an appeal contesting the judgment of the Appellate Court of La Serena” and “[t]he effectiveness of the appeal in question is determined by its result. Thus, the Supreme Court, having taken note of this, decided to reduce the sanction that had been imposed to that of a private reprimand, which is the lightest sanction of those established by article 537.” Lastly, the State argued that the representatives had not provided the reasons why they considered that the disciplinary proceedings established in the Organic Code of the Courts violated the presumption of innocence, which “is a meta-principle that, recognized by the Chilean ‘constitutional bloc,’ has an impact on all domestic legislation. Evidently, this includes the rules of the OCC for the Judiciary’s disciplinary proceedings.” B. Considerations of the Court 100. Article 8 of the Convention establishes the guidelines for due process of law, which is composed of a series of requirements that must be met by the procedural instances to ensure that the individual is able to defend his rights adequately vis-à-vis any type of act of the State that could affect them.89 101. According to Article 8(1) of the Convention, when determining rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature, it is necessary to observe “due guarantees” that ensure the right to due process during the corresponding proceedings. Failure to comply with one of these guarantees entails a violation of this provision of the Convention.90 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 63. 89 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 119, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 119. 90 26